Lieberman is no fascist
One of the most controversial proposals to come out of the recent elections was that of Yisrael Beiteinu's Avigdor Lieberman to 'transfer' Arab-populated territory and the local population from Israel's Galilee region to the 'Palestinian'He first defines facism - a term that much of the world misuses. Facism is "an ideology that sees the state as an "organic" body enjoying a separate existence and superiority to the whole of its citizens. In essence, a moderate fascistic element can be found in every "patriotic" party. Only a party that believes the state is nothing but a tool for collecting taxes, maintaining roads, and building sewage systems is completely free from any fascist stain, and such parties are almost non-existent in the Western world."
Tal then goes on to make the argument for Lieberman's proposal. In the context of a real peace agreement (which is unlikely to happen in our generation), the argument makes sense - except that Tal is far too generous for my tastes:
Lieberman believes that the attachment Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute about 20 percent of the population, share with residents of the West Bank and Gaza could make Israel crumble from inside. He claims that in almost every country that is home to two or more peoples, nationalistically motivated conflicts erupt (with the exception of the United States, which enjoys unique circumstances.)
This happens even in democratic countries like Spain (the Basques,) Belgium (Flemish versus Walloons,) Canada (English speakers versus French speakers,) etc.
Here, the conflict is not only nationalistic, but rather, religious as well, and therefore it is doubly severe. Therefore, Lieberman says, the solution must be in the form of separation. That way we may be able to eventually enjoy good neighborly relations with the Arabs, while a life of "togetherness" is destined to produce ongoing conflict, which would only get worse and eventually bring disaster to both peoples. The truth of the matter is that Israel's founding fathers very much adopted the path proposed by Israel Our Home, even if they did not declare it so explicitly. The Law of Return serves as unequivocal proof that founders of the State were concerned about the country's Jewish character. Indeed, the law constitutes clear discrimination against anyone who is not Jewish.
The handing over of territory to a Palestinian state is not a transfer, because we are not talking about moving people from their homes. No Arab citizen would be removed from his or her home, but merely live under Palestinian rule. The 1949 armistice lines are not sacred, just as the 1967 cease-fire lines are not final. A certain measure of "sanctity" and finality only exist when it comes to borders marked through a permanent agreement struck via negotiations.
In talks between Israel and Palestine we would be able to propose the exchange of populated territories – Israeli settlements in the West Bank in exchange for Arab-Israeli communities. If we show generosity, and agree to provide the social benefits customary in Israel to the Arabs that agree to leave us for a period of at least two generations, the Arab side may agree to consider our offer.
In any case, there is nothing that should hinder, either politically or morally, putting such proposal on the agenda.
Read it all.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home